Boigon’s new TV ad focuses on pay raise, proof that campaign is heating up

Carol Boigon has been proud to let everyone know that she voted against a 6.6 percent pay raise for Denver’s incoming elected officials — and now she is using it in her second political advertisement.

Boigon was one of five council members to vote against the pay raise, which passed at a March 21 council meeting. The two other council members who are running for mayor, Doug Linkhart and Michael Hancock, supported the raise that kicks in two years from now.

Her ad also says she returned $50,000 to the budget given to her to run her office.

“I’m proud of my vote to reject pay raises for elected officials and record of being a good steward with taxpayer dollars,” Boigon says.

In the ad, she walks through cutouts of Linkhart, Hancock as well as a slender-looking Chris Romer and James Mejia, who have said that they are against the pay raise.

On Tuesday, Boigon held a press conference to “launch a grassroots petition drive” calling on the candidates to reject the pay raises.

Hancock this morning sent a message to city workers via his website:

For each furlough day you have taken the past two years, I have written a personal check back to the city to return that day’s pay, and I will share in any additional sacrifices that may be necessary in the future. As Mayor, I will not accept the salary adjustment scheduled to take effect in 2013.

Boigon says her press release that “with so many Denver families barely making ends meet and a $100 million budget deficit facing the city and with proposed cuts in education and senior services, Denver families need a government that puts their interests first — not that of politicians.”

Records show that between 2006 and 2010 Boigon has returned $58,566 to the city’s budget.

In January 2007, Boigon as well as Linkhart and Hancock voted to give the incoming elected officials a 6.35 percent pay raise — increasing the pay of council members to $78,173 from $73,512.

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. So, you can vote for a pay raise when there’s no indication (which there was) that the economy is going to head for a downturn, but voting against a pay raise two years from now when the economy could have recovered (and there are indications that it is) is fighting for hurting families?

Sounds more like voting based on politics than voting based on conscience. At least Linkhart and Hancock have the stones to defend their vote, and Mejia and Romer aren’t even part of this debate, so why include them?

Wait a minute, let me get this straight. So, you can vote for a pay raise when there’s no indication (which there was) that the economy is going to head for a downturn, but voting against a pay raise two years from now when the economy could have recovered (and there are indications that it is) is fighting for hurting families?

Sounds more like voting based on politics than voting based on conscience. At least Linkhart and Hancock have the stones to defend their vote, and Mejia and Romer aren’t even part of this debate, so why include them?

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.